Saturday, December 4, 2010

Top Evidences for Creation!

A reader sent me a link to this site and asked me to address it.  It's some moron's list of what he believes are pieces of evidence for biblical creationism.  Let's get started by addressing the 13th and final 'evidence', which should establish the intellectual dishonesty of the author immediately.

13.  The Bible is true. The history of the Bible is true. The words of the Bible concerning our origins were given to men to write down, by God, who was the only living being present. We were not there! God said He created the universe. God said He created all living things. We know that life is much more than chemicals. God put His life into Adam and that life has been transferred from generation to generation all the way down to us!

Well then, that settles it!  The Bible says creationism is true, so there you go!  We don't need no fucking evidence!  That was the site's big finale.

1. The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence..... Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.

Ah, the Atheist's Riddle.  I just happen to be the author and host of Google's top-ranked page when somebody searches for "atheist's riddle", ranking even above the riddle's actual website, so why don't I just link to that?  Also, the last claim about mutations not being able to create beneficial mutations is false.  I know one example off the top of my head, despite not being a biologist, and that is the upgrade from 2-colour vision to 3-colour vision among old-world primates (including us).  I'd also like to reference the - An Index to Creationist Claims.  Check out here and here if you want some actual examples of beneficial mutations, backed by scientific papers.  The author of the creationist website is ignorant and/or lying.

2. Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own..... The “Law of Biogenesis” states that life comes only from prior life.

Luckily for me, I just did a post on this.  So exactly which kind of biological entity is your god?  Also, check the TalkOrigins site here.  The creationist author does not know what the Law of Biogenesis is or when it applies.

I'm starting to get bored now.  The next 2 items in the list are basically "design is apparent" and "irreducible complexity".  Both arguments have already lost in science's court and lost in the court of law in the Dover trial.  I'm wondering at this point if anybody else has noticed what I've noticed, which is that none of these claims, except for the ridiculous #13, are actually evidences for creationism, let alone the creationism proposed by the Bible, even if they are completely true.  They are attempting to use an argument from ignorance and false dichotomy to avoid proving their case.  If evidence for evolution collapses tomorrow, that is not evidence for creationism, biblical or otherwise.  Prove that YOUR story is true, you fucking cowards!

Want to see another example of an argument from ignorance?

12. Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.

Gee, I can't imagine how this could have happened, therefore rather than trying to figure it out, I'm going to claim "goddidit".  That's good enough for me and my intellect.

Let's close with,

11. Language separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language.

See this post.  The author is also equating language and speech, which is bullshit, as any sign-language 'speaker' will tell you.  Animals may not be able to speak like humans (or maybe they can, in their own way, such as dolphins), but they can use language.  This is a proven fact.  They're not as good at it as we are, but they can do it.  The foundation for future development is there.  The creationist author is again lying and/or ignorant.  Also, the last assertion about no explanation for human language, even if it is true, is an argument from ignorance, an intellectual lie, and does not support creationism, biblical or otherwise, in any way.


David McNerney said...

To be fair (not that anyone who can't even correctly quote the second law of thermodynamics deserves it) - points 2 (in a different form), 6 and 10 are points that are worthy of consideration. The rest is just BS.

We don't know how the universe came into existence, we haven't a complete picture of abiogenesis and consciousness is currently beyond our understanding.

Of course, the scientific understanding of these thing and limited capacity for explanation is not trumped by a complete lack of understanding and non-explanatory power of the religious point of view.

Jim said...

I like how they try to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to contradict the Big Bang, even though the evidence they point to would also disprove an eternal being who created everything from nothing in 6 days.

Of course, their understanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics is sub-par, and their concept of entropy is almost non-existent, so it only seems fitting that their "argument" against the Big Bang would also disprove gods. But the author of that site is clearly copying and pasting things they overheard elsewhere.

We just had another moron on this site who tried copying and pasting (in the form of flat-out plagiarism). He didn't understand any of his arguments either. Seems like a common thread among theists.

Admin said...

By the creationist's understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it shouldn't be possible for atoms to combine chemically into a more complex structure. The excuse about it being possible for life to grow because information is present also doesn't make sense. I just got bored of refuting every point.

I must disagree with David. #2, 6 and 10 are neither evidence against evolution, nor are they evidence for biblical creationism. They are arguments from ignorance, flanked by a poor understanding of science. Why do you think they are worthy of consideration in a context which suggests they are evidence for biblical creationism?

David McNerney said...

Sorry, I'm not for one second suggesting that 2,6 and 10 are even related to evolution, never mind being evidence against it.

It's just that there are a small number of big ticket items that science has yet to get to grips with, and until they do they are stumbling blocks.

I single 2,6 and 10 out because the correct response to them is "I don't know" as opposed to the correct for the other points, which is obviously "You are a moron".

Magnamune said...

I would have to disagree. The corrrecctt response ffor 2, 6 and 10 is "We don't know, yet". That 'yet' is vital, as it suggest that mankind will find an answer in the future. Saying we suggests that sccience doesn't know, as opposed to the individual.

Best to be as honest as possible, hey.

Anonymous said...

Didn't god do a great job. Create a universe with no beginning nor end and in the mean time create biology from chemistry, then make all life to look like it evolved into different forms.

Anonymous said...

2 is not known, but with the Stanley Miller experiment it seems likely to be possible.
6 is ignorance itself if taken in the context of Gods, on a universal scale, we don't know yet. Maybe something comes from nothing when there is ABSOLUTELY nothing. The time/space thing isn't really relevant, time is just a rate of change of spatial location, maybe in the eternal instant of nothing, something came into existence by nature? We don't know.
10 is an assumption that consciousness is what we think it is: it's an abstract, and why can't it be chemical? In general, all we want to do is reproduce and keep on living, so I don't see it as some metaphysical thing at all.

Anonymous said...

Also, as for #12, there are instances of plants who have "male" and "female" flowers (sex organs) and therefore the transision to sexual reproduction is actually easy to see.